The self-defeating nature of using "Privilege (Theory)" (in societal discourse)

[Akka]

Not logical, but is it necessary? Can you oppress someone that you don't hate?

Isn't it the entire point of capitalism ?
If you can gain something from the oppression of others, you don't need to hate them to do it (you'd need to be either uncaring or sufficiently removed from them to not feel concerned, but no hate is necessary).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

These ideas are based upon the relatively recent idea that racism requires a power imbalance, that the oppressed cannot by definition be racist, only an oppressor can be racist. A thought-experiment shows that this is silly:

Imagine two islands, one of green people and one of purple people. They have exactly the same numbers of people, exactly the same level of technological and industrial development. Now imagine that they despise each other in a pathologically racist manner. Green people hate purples people because they are purple - being purple is unclean, inferior, impure. Purple people think exactly the same about Green people.

Under the racism = prejudice + power analysis there can be no racism in this scenario as there is no power imbalance. This demonstrates that this definition of racism is useless.

It's not useless, it's just not what most people mean by "racism" and seems specifically designed to create distracting semantic arguments. I do enjoy a good semantic argument of course, but still.

 

[Lexicus]

Lol this sounds like the attitude of someone who has a very different idea of whose country it is than most of the country

Yes, it's my country, I'm a citizen, I have lived almost my whole life here. Sadly for you, a majority of Americans disapprove of Trump (and Hillary Clinton received more votes) so "most of the country" actually agrees with me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, it's my country, I'm a citizen, I have lived almost my whole life here. Sadly for you, a majority of Americans disapprove of Trump (and Hillary Clinton received more votes) so "most of the country" actually agrees with me.

But is that steaming pile of feces with Big Don on top something you really want to claim?

 

[Lexicus]

But is that steaming pile of feces with Big Don on top something you really want to claim?

I don't really want to, but I feel that I must.

 

[Broken_Erika]

You could get into politics, and call your new party "The Anti-Septic Party"

 

[brennan]

It's not useless, it's just not what most people mean by "racism" and seems specifically designed to create distracting semantic arguments. I do enjoy a good semantic argument of course, but still.

It is a definition seemingly designed to allow some people to look the other way when minorities are blatantly racist.

 

[Senethro]

Nah, rather its trying to cut through the endless bullcrap. The determined obstructionist can yodel for ages about "we're all a little bit racist", "their racism justifies my racism", or "I've never been racist so its not my problem and I'm excused from caring now why don't we instead talk about my issues?". The focus keeps being dragged back to themselves as an individual and have a habit of getting personally offended if you point out their group having it easier makes other groups having it harder.

And really, what harm does calling people mean names do as compared with ghetto creation or unequal outcomes in education/justice systems?

The "racism" of minorities really is less important. Changing systems is what matters. Don't you monkey fighters dare split this line in quotes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is a definition seemingly designed to allow some people to look the other way when minorities are blatantly racist.

Looking the other way when minorities are blatantly racist is very unlikely to cause any harm to anyone. That's the point. "Those people confined into that ghetto by economic injustice and prevented from taking any particular action on their own behalf by a "justice" system that is totally weighted against them don't like me either" just isn't a convincing argument that THEY are the racists that we need to pay attention to.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Truth is there are wealthy Asians who hold racist views and use their position of power to oppress non-Asians (black, white, latino, and most groups oppress Native Americans). Seeing as Asians (particularly those from China, Japan, South Korea, and India) have assimilated and have reached similar (or better) wealth and success as other ethnicities originally not considered white (such as Irish and Italian), I would consider them to not be racially underprivileged (and light skinned East Asians could easily be considered to have white privilege). Therefore, it would be logical to consider wealthy, light-skinned Asians who act on racist views as being racist.

My family members arrived in the US during periods of time when they were oppressed. Irish, Italian, German-speaking Swiss, and Mexican. When they came to the USA, they did NOT have white privilege.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Truth is there are wealthy Asians who hold racist views and use their position of power to oppress non-Asians (black, white, latino, and most groups oppress Native Americans). Seeing as Asians (particularly those from China, Japan, South Korea, and India) have assimilated and have reached similar (or better) wealth and success as other ethnicities originally not considered white (such as Irish and Italian), I would consider them to not be racially underprivileged (and light skinned East Asians could easily be considered to have white privilege). Therefore, it would be logical to consider wealthy, light-skinned Asians who act on racist views as being racist.

My family members arrived in the US during periods of time when they were oppressed. Irish, Italian, German-speaking Swiss, and Mexican. When they came to the USA, they did NOT have white privilege.

Sure man. Your mighty clan of incredibly gifted overcomers would probably have done just fine if they had arrived in the deepest hold of a slave ship and been sold to plantation owners, but not everyone has such an impressive genetic advantage.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Sure man. Your mighty clan of incredibly gifted overcomers would probably have done just fine if they had arrived in the deepest hold of a slave ship and been sold to plantation owners, but not everyone has such an impressive genetic advantage.

I never said anything about African-Americans. They are still oppressed by the system. It will take generations of changes before they reach equality. However, Asians, who were never chattel slaves AFAIK in the US, have assimilated into privilege just like the Irish and Italians.

 

[JMA2286]

Yes, it's my country, I'm a citizen, I have lived almost my whole life here. Sadly for you, a majority of Americans disapprove of Trump (and Hillary Clinton received more votes) so "most of the country" actually agrees with me.

"Almost my whole life"

Thomas Aquinas would be laughing pretty hard at that idea, even the idea that someone who is a third generation citizen could claim nationality.

And the polls you quote have been proven to be skewed since before 2016, so try that on someone who doesn't know how to read polling sample data.

Most of the country that matters, the people who actually get off their butts and vote, are abandoning the Democrats en masse. You'll see, once again, as nationalism continues to germinate in the United States

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thomas Aquinas would be laughing pretty hard at that idea, even the idea that someone who is a third generation citizen could claim nationality.

You are citing...Thomas Aquinas...as the authority on nationality? This is a new level of "conservatism." Who the heck wound your clock back? I knew there were a lot of backwards thinkers among the Trumpists, but...Thomas Aquinas? Seriously?

 

[Lexicus]

"Almost my whole life"

Thomas Aquinas would be laughing pretty hard at that idea, even the idea that someone who is a third generation citizen could claim nationality.

I have no idea what this even means. I was born in this country, I have ancestors who have been here since the 1600s, it is very likely to be more "mine" than "yours" by your (probably pretty racist) standards.

Most of the country that matters, the people who actually get off their butts and vote, are abandoning the Democrats en masse. You'll see, once again, as nationalism continues to germinate in the United States

Just quoting this so you can't edit or delete it later.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nah, rather its trying to cut through the endless bullcrap. The determined obstructionist can yodel for ages about "we're all a little bit racist", "their racism justifies my racism", or "I've never been racist so its not my problem and I'm excused from caring now why don't we instead talk about my issues?". The focus keeps being dragged back to themselves as an individual and have a habit of getting personally offended if you point out their group having it easier makes other groups having it harder.

And really, what harm does calling people mean names do as compared with ghetto creation or unequal outcomes in education/justice systems?

The "racism" of minorities really is less important. Changing systems is what matters. Don't you monkey fighters dare split this line in quotes.

Looking the other way when minorities are blatantly racist is very unlikely to cause any harm to anyone. That's the point. "Those people confined into that ghetto by economic injustice and prevented from taking any particular action on their own behalf by a "justice" system that is totally weighted against them don't like me either" just isn't a convincing argument that THEY are the racists that we need to pay attention to.

Kind of interesting that the two of you don't even seem able to conceive of a white person calling a non-white person racist without also explicitly stating that they are racist too. Or that you can't conceive of non-white people living anywhere other than in a ghetto for some reason. Or that the racism of non-white people can never extend beyond "mean words".

Also if mean words aren't really a problem, then I guess we can just break out all racial slurs can we?

 

[metalhead]

I feel like you have to be intentionally daft not to understand that racial epithets which have been used to systematically dehumanize an entire race of people, for the express purpose of perpetrating slavery and Jim Crow and consequence-free state murder, are orders of magnitude worse and more harmful than ones minority populations might use to describe the majority.

I don't get the purpose of trying to equate the two. It's like you don't understand how language works.

 

[Old Hippy]

I feel like you have to be intentionally daft not to understand that racial epithets which have been used to systematically dehumanize an entire race of people, for the express purpose of perpetrating slavery and Jim Crow and consequence-free state murder, are orders of magnitude worse and more harmful than ones minority populations might use to describe the majority.

I don't get the purpose of trying to equate the two. It's like you don't understand how language works.

language works when you replace ''white male privileged capitalist slavers'' with ''Jewish privileged conspiratorially bankers'' and can not see there is No difference

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Kind of interesting that the two of you don't even seem able to conceive of a white person calling a non-white person racist without also explicitly stating that they are racist too. Or that you can't conceive of non-white people living anywhere other than in a ghetto for some reason. Or that the racism of non-white people can never extend beyond "mean words".

Oh, give the "let me tell you the astonishingly weird things you believe" BS a rest, will you? It's just tiresome trolling.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Simply put, Asians are more privileged than Eastern Europeans (who are usually considered white) are more privileged than Africans. By this logic, either light skinned Asians have white privilege or Slavic peoples do not.